The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production
DarthAmerica    4/6/2009 3:53:07 PM
h*tp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97D4QTO1&show_article=1

Apr 6 02:44 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended halting production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined deep cuts to many of the military's biggest weapons programs.
Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a "fundamental overhaul" in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan.

The department must ensure it has the right programs and money to "fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks," Gates said as he revealed details of his budget for the next fiscal year.

The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon's spending since 2001. Spending on tanks, fighter planes, ships, missiles and other weapons accounted for about a third of all defense spending last year. But Gates noted more money will be needed in areas such as personnel as the Army and Marines expand the size of their forces.

Gates will likely face stiff resistance in Congress, where lawmakers are wary of losing defense contractor jobs with an economy in crisis. Some defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. have warned of huge layoffs if programs are cut.

Production of the F-22 fighter jet, which cost $140 million apiece, would be halted at 187. Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended.

Some of the Pentagon's most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army's $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back.

Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents.

"It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure against a remote or diminishing risk?or in effect to run up the score in a capability where the United States is already dominant?is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable," Gates said.

The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon's biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a "staggering" figure of $296 billion.

A bill in Congress would require the Pentagon to do a better job of making sure proposed weapons are affordable and perform the way they should before the military spends big sums on them. The Defense Department has already adjusted its acquisitions policy to achieve some of those goals.

------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm already bracing myself for the comments to follow...

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62   NEXT
gf0012-aust       4/24/2009 7:08:52 PM
mea culpa!

posted to wrong thread.

meant for:
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/24/2009 8:22:57 PM

.....................................Do you see where FALSE assumptions lead?



Apparently at least possibly to concluding that we have gaps in our continental air defense that are best (as in big picture "best" and not merely as in technically the most capable platform vis-a-vis any one given specific scenario) filled using a bunch of F-22.  Any problems remaining regarding our air defense are procedural and informational, not platform-related.  If we still have vulnerabilities it's for lack of proper and sufficient TTPs, and not for lack of more 5th generation fighters in our interceptor fleet.
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/24/2009 8:33:01 PM

Herald they just don't get it.

 

Argue every valid point until we are blue in the face, all that matters is fighting pirates and insurgencies and starting up the JSF line so we don't hurt our allies' feelings when in all reality most will be more pissed off in the long run because they can only afford to buy 20 of them at 4x the cost originally proposed. Good luck with that.

 

 



Not the case at all.  I think it's obvious we do not need for all our aircraft to be VLO, and therefore we do not need to eventually (by something like ~2030 according to the current plan, I think) replace all our F-15E, F-16, A-10, AV-8B, and some F-18 with F-35.  However, we certainly do still need to maintain an ironclad foundation for pretty much all the rest of our military power (certainly at least for exercise of our airpower, which also is paramount to exercising our seapower and landpower), and make sure we can assert air supreamacy extremely rapidly in any scenario.  Therefore, we could easily afford to scale back the F-35 program if that was the only possible way to "pay for" buying just a few more F-22 in order to ensure we have a comfortable margin of a couple measly squadrons of F-22 more than maybe we truly "need."
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Answer 1.   4/24/2009 11:50:57 PM



.....................................Do you see where FALSE assumptions lead?








Apparently at least possibly to concluding that we have gaps in our continental air defense that are best (as in big picture "best" and not merely as in technically the most capable platform vis-a-vis any one given specific scenario) filled using a bunch of F-22.  Any problems remaining regarding our air defense are procedural and informational, not platform-related.  If we still have vulnerabilities it's for lack of proper and sufficient TTPs, and not for lack of more 5th generation fighters in our interceptor fleet.

 

Addressed pages ago when I cited what aviation engineer students tried to address when they were working up an UAS interceptor. A ground or air controlled super-cruise engined missile shover would be kinetic sufficient. But you have that in the future as in NEVER WILL BE FUNDED. What we have is what we have, and that is the F-22 .
 
The F-22 is the shooting tool and the information is the problem?. Tactics, technoques and procedures do you no good if you can't get there in time to do anything with your revised TTPs. 
   
More in next reply.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Answer 1.   4/25/2009 12:07:43 AM




Herald they just don't get it.



 



Argue every valid point until we are blue in the face, all that matters is fighting pirates and insurgencies and starting up the JSF line so we don't hurt our allies' feelings when in all reality most will be more pissed off in the long run because they can only afford to buy 20 of them at 4x the cost originally proposed. Good luck with that.



 



 








Not the case at all.  I think it's obvious we do not need for all our aircraft to be VLO, and therefore we do not need to eventually (by something like ~2030 according to the current plan, I think) replace all our F-15E, F-16, A-10, AV-8B, and some F-18 with F-35.  However, we certainly do still need to maintain an ironclad foundation for pretty much all the rest of our military power (certainly at least for exercise of our airpower, which also is paramount to exercising our seapower and landpower), and make sure we can assert air supreamacy extremely rapidly in any scenario.  Therefore, we could easily afford to scale back the F-35 program if that was the only possible way to "pay for" buying just a few more F-22 in order to ensure we have a comfortable margin of a couple measly squadrons of F-22 more than maybe we truly "need."

 

its inevitable that post interregnumist we are going to be severely financially damaged, so we are going to see something cut. The Sparkie is the biggest fattest target out there for cuts next to the fleet. That is the politics.

We will have to roboticize to make up for that. Avenger is the first glimpse of the throwaway attack aircraft we will be fielding. With ten hour internal weapon carriage as part of the perceived parameters you get a teleoperated attrition unit for SEAD. That means a 1,800,000 meter attack radian. Not sure how waiting five hours to reach the lainch points will work out, and its too small for scram-darts but its the near-term post interregnumist solution. Figure each robot will cost about $10,000,000 each. 
 
That changes how we fight though: since we will be mostly fighting OTH standoff and BLIND when we attack.
 
That kind of an air force will result in many unnecessary enemy civilian casualties wrong targets hit and missed targets as we have to work off a target list of fixed targets.
 
We will also lose many of those aircraft-mostly to mechanical failure and EW failures.
 
Herald

 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/25/2009 12:29:49 AM

The F-22 is the shooting tool and the information is the problem?. Tactics, technoques and procedures do you no good if you can't get there in time to do anything with your revised TTPs. 


First, *if* a realistic aerial threat can actually be found, and then if a fighter aircraft can be the solution to that realistic threat, then we could find a way to station some F-15s or F-16s close enough to react in time to provide a realistic capability to handle that threat.  If some of our border regions are beyond reasonable reaction time via jets on strip alert, then we could establish some relatively-constant CAPs to cover those gaps.  It's hardly insurmountable.  If four F-22 bases could cover it, then I'm sure some greater number, like eight or twelve F-15 and F-16 units could give adequately equivalent coverage.  If 12 different squadrons still leave too many gaps, then make it 16 or whatever.  It's just a matter of making sure the various F-15 and F-16 USAF and Guard squadrons around the country each keep a few jets on strip alert, and then make sure the necessary C4ISR to co-ordinate the response is in place and used.  I would assume that's exactly what we are doing now.
 
The only way F-22s could be indispensible for this mission is if some emerging threat literally can't be countered by our current fighters even after we make sure that there is proper, timely fighter coverage available.  Frankly, I doubt that any such conceivable threat is anything close to a realistic threat.  Granted, I probably would have said something similar about hijacked airliner manned cruise missiles before 9/11.  However, again I would bet that the nature of our response most likely to provide the biggest increase in our ability to counter whatever new threat emerges is probably found in some other approach other than sending up F-22s instead of F-15s.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Warpig Reply    4/25/2009 12:56:25 AM

The F-22 is the shooting tool and the information is the problem?. Tactics, technoques and procedures do you no good if you can't get there in time to do anything with your revised TTPs. 



First, *if* a realistic aerial threat can actually be found, and then if a fighter aircraft can be the solution to that realistic threat, then we could find a way to station some F-15s or F-16s close enough to react in time to provide a realistic capability to handle that threat.  If some of our border regions are beyond reasonable reaction time via jets on strip alert, then we could establish some relatively-constant CAPs to cover those gaps.  It's hardly insurmountable.  If four F-22 bases could cover it, then I'm sure some greater number, like eight or twelve F-15 and F-16 units could give adequately equivalent coverage.  If 12 different squadrons still leave too many gaps, then make it 16 or whatever.  It's just a matter of making sure the various F-15 and F-16 USAF and Guard squadrons around the country each keep a few jets on strip alert, and then make sure the necessary C4ISR to co-ordinate the response is in place and used.  I would assume that's exactly what we are doing now.

 

The only way F-22s could be indispensible for this mission is if some emerging threat literally can't be countered by our current fighters even after we make sure that there is proper, timely fighter coverage available.  Frankly, I doubt that any such conceivable threat is anything close to a realistic threat.  Granted, I probably would have said something similar about hijacked airliner manned cruise missiles before 9/11.  However, again I would bet that the nature of our response most likely to provide the biggest increase in our ability to counter whatever new threat emerges is probably found in some other approach other than sending up F-22s instead of F-15s.

 

 

There is a lot of OSINT documentation on missile defense and almost all of the more credible assessments do not focus on specific platforms. First, none of our operational fighters were designed with this mission in mind. The sheer vastness of the area to be covered shows that. Adapting what we have, which includes F-teens from all services, to be a part of this fight is a matter of appropriately using whatever platform is involved. If you want to defend an area against a CM then you have to station whatever asset you have close enough to react within the time you think is necessary to affect an intercept. However, at a certain point you reach a margin of diminishing returns. Also the cost to benefit ratio starts to fail rather quickly at the platform level with CMs. Look at technology like the Brahmos. Not now but 5 to 10 years from now. And before anybody starts lamenting over specific CMs consider I'm not focusing on specifics but rather the technological trends. This isn't as simple as x number of F-22s=problem solved. It's going to take development of things like SIAP and IFC and building capability around the network.

-DA 


 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    That makes no sense.   4/25/2009 1:00:03 AM



The F-22 is the shooting tool and the information is the problem?. Tactics, technoques and procedures do you no good if you can't get there in time to do anything with your revised TTPs. 






First, *if* a realistic aerial threat can actually be found, and then if a fighter aircraft can be the solution to that realistic threat, then we could find a way to station some F-15s or F-16s close enough to react in time to provide a realistic capability to handle that threat.  If some of our border regions are beyond reasonable reaction time via jets on strip alert, then we could establish some relatively-constant CAPs to cover those gaps.  It's hardly insurmountable.  If four F-22 bases could cover it, then I'm sure some greater number, like eight or twelve F-15 and F-16 units could give adequately equivalent coverage.  If 12 different squadrons still leave too many gaps, then make it 16 or whatever.  It's just a matter of making sure the various F-15 and F-16 USAF and Guard squadrons around the country each keep a few jets on strip alert, and then make sure the necessary C4ISR to co-ordinate the response is in place and used.  I would assume that's exactly what we are doing now.

 

The only way F-22s could be indispensible for this mission is if some emerging threat literally can't be countered by our current fighters even after we make sure that there is proper, timely fighter coverage available.  Frankly, I doubt that any such conceivable threat is anything close to a realistic threat.  Granted, I probably would have said something similar about hijacked airliner manned cruise missiles before 9/11.  However, again I would bet that the nature of our response most likely to provide the biggest increase in our ability to counter whatever new threat emerges is probably found in some other approach other than sending up F-22s instead of F-15s.

 

 


Why use 200-300 old style aircraft to do the work of 50 supercruisers?
 
?????????????????????????????????????????     $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
Herald
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/25/2009 1:48:47 AM


Why use 200-300 old style aircraft to do the work of 50 supercruisers?

 

?????????????????????????????????????????     $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


 

Herald


 
Because we have the necessary legacy aircraft to do this, they will be here for the next ~20 years, and the SecDef has made it clear the USAF isn't going to get 50 more super cruisers. 

 
-DA
 

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       4/25/2009 3:23:58 AM







The F-22 is the shooting tool and the information is the problem?. Tactics, technoques and procedures do you no good if you can't get there in time to do anything with your revised TTPs. 














First, *if* a realistic aerial threat can actually be found, and then if a fighter aircraft can be the solution to that realistic threat, then we could find a way to station some F-15s or F-16s close enough to react in time to provide a realistic capability to handle that threat.  If some of our border regions are beyond reasonable reaction time via jets on strip alert, then we could establish some relatively-constant CAPs to cover those gaps.  It's hardly insurmountable.  If four F-22 bases could cover it, then I'm sure some greater number, like eight or twelve F-15 and F-16 units could give adequately equivalent coverage.  If 12 different squadrons still leave too many gaps, then make it 16 or whatever.  It's just a matter of making sure the various F-15 and F-16 USAF and Guard squadrons around the country each keep a few jets on strip alert, and then make sure the necessary C4ISR to co-ordinate the response is in place and used.  I would assume that's exactly what we are doing now.



 



The only way F-22s could be indispensible for this mission is if some emerging threat literally can't be countered by our current fighters even after we make sure that there is proper, timely fighter coverage available.  Frankly, I doubt that any such conceivable threat is anything close to a realistic threat.  Granted, I probably would have said something similar about hijacked airliner manned cruise missiles before 9/11.  However, again I would bet that the nature of our response most likely to provide the biggest increase in our ability to counter whatever new threat emerges is probably found in some other approach other than sending up F-22s instead of F-15s.



 



 






Why use 200-300 old style aircraft to do the work of 50 supercruisers?

 ?????????????????????????????????????????     $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Herald


I agree intuitively but let's do the math.
 
I was thinking it would net out to, oh, end up being about 5 F-15s per F-22.  Maybe 8 (or do you think much more?) using F-16s, or perhaps fewer replacing with F-35, needing only 1.5-2 JSF per ATF?  Or maybe you need 3 of everything as a minimum no matter the platform. 
 
CAP is not demanding in the sense that almost any option, in sufficient numbers or perhaps I should say ratios, could do it with confidence.  Let's say all F-22s are replaced with F-4 Phantoms,  We have 187 F-4s at AMARC, no doubt, so it's free beer till you upgrade avionics, refresh engines, cram in radar and datalinks and set up for AESA-SAR-IRST-HMCS-AMRAAM-LinkXX.  You don't care about stealth for CAP or anything in AF/Pak/Iraq/pirates, and anything you need stealth for can be done just as well by F-35s, so screw it, end the program altogether.  At the very least, add 60 or 600 F-4Xs with all the tweaks.  They can be had:
 
link

309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
"AMARC" redirects here. For other uses, see AMARC (disambiguation).
309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group
Active 2007-Present
Country United States
Branch Air Force
Type Group
Role Equipment Support
Part of Air Force Materiel Command
Garrison/HQ Davis-Monthan Air Force Base
Commanders
Current
commander		 Colonel Thomas A. Schneider
Aerial View of AMARG, 16 May 1992.
Welcome sign at AMARG before its 2007 name change.
Boeing 707s being used for salvage parts for the C-135 airframe at AMARG.
UH-1 Huey helicopters and F-4 Phantom fighters at AMARG
B-1 Bombers in storage at AMARG
Navy F-4 Phantom II Fighters in storage at AMARG.

The 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG),[1] often called The Boneyard, is a United States Air Force aircraft storage and maintenance facility in Tucson, Arizona, located on Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. AMARG was previously Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center, AMARC, and before that the Military Aircraft Storage and Disposal Center, MASDC.

It takes care of more than 4,400 aircraft, including 700 F-4 Phantom IIs, whose total original purchase price is estimated at $27 billion. An Air Force Material Command unit, the group is under the command of the 309th Maintenance Wing of Hill Air Force Base, Utah. AMARG was originally meant to store excess Department of Defense and Coast Guard aircraft, but has in recent years been designated the sole repository of out-of-service aircraft from all branches of the US government.

 
 
Nothing in the enemy's sky in the next twenty years can get away from a Phantom in a stern chase let alone its missiles. 
 
  And I think that Darth and Herald will agree that its performance and capabilities would suffice to complete the mission.  These upgrades are also potentially economical:
 

link class="l">F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Upgrades

Buying a more sophisticated supersonic fighter, like the F-15 Eagle or Panavia Tornado, was too expensive and instead, the THK decided to upgrade its Phantom fleet with improvements to avionics and structure, but not to the engines. In August 1995, after a hotly contested competition with DASA (F-4 ICE), IAI was awarded a USD600M contract to upgrade 54 F-4Es to Phantom 2000s. The first 26 aircraft were rebuilt in Israel, and the other 28 in Turkey.[58]

[edit] Structure

Small strakes above the air intakes to improve agility, new attachment fittings, engine mountings, stronger wing fold ribs, updated canopy sill bar, 12 mi (20 km) of wiring replaced (reducing weight by 1,653 lb/750 kg) as well as most hydraulic and pneumatic lines and hoses, and fuel tank reinforcements.[60]

[edit] Avionics

New MFD (multifunction display) in the front cockpit plus two in the rear, new Kaiser El-OP 976 wide-angle HUD and HOTAS system, high-performance Elta ELO/M-2032 ISAR-capable high-resolution SAR/GMTI (ground moving target indicator) multi-mode fire-control radar (developed for the IAI Lavi), IAIC mission computer, new navigation equipment including GPS/INS connected to mapping mode, dual MIL-STD-553B databus managing avionics package, Astronautics Central Air Data Computer, new UHF and IFF packages, airborne video tape recorder (AVTR), Elta EL/L-8222 active ECM pod and Mikes (Aselsan) AN/ALQ-178V3 passive embedded SPEWS, and RWR.[60][52]

Additionally, they had AGM-142 Popeye/Have Nap integration, Litening-II targeting pods, and the capability to launch AGM-65D/G Maverick, AGM-88 HARM, GBU-8 HOBOS, GBU-10/12 Paveway II LGBs, general purpose and cluster bombs for air-to-ground missions, while retaining the capability to launch AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. It is also possible to install Pave Spike targeting pods and rocket pods of all sizes.[60][52]

These upgraded F-4 Phantoms are referred to as the F-4E-2020 Terminator. They will be in service until at least 2015 and perhaps longer. The first entered service on 27 January 2000 with deliveries to 111 and 171 Filo.[58]

 
 
 
In theory  then, we could see such a job done for on the order of $11MM apiece.  The airframes already exist though if Darth and Herald worked together in a really good CAD/CAM scenario, perhaps F-4 production could be reconstituted swiftly - though they used a lot of titanium IIRC. 
 
Any gate, the chief problem with this idea seems to be that the F-4 solution would use up too much fuel.  (I don't know how much, but I bet a lot, measured in metric buttloads.)  I am an F-4 fan, but I know there must be flaws in this thinking.  Probably the ranges and sustained speeds of the F-22 are unachievable by the F-4 at any specific fuel consumption, and there'd be a lot of tanking going on at the least, probably need CFTs if possible to go with/instead of underwing drop tanks. 
 
 
But tell me this is not beautiful:
 RF-4C / F-4 Phantom II Reconnaissance Photo Print
 
Take him off with two or four AAM and gun or no gun, top him off,  and racetrack him or direct vector him or whatever you have in mind.  Once he gets to Mach 2+ and closes to 60-80-100-120-150-200km, or to WVR, he launches AMRAAM or Meteor, or AIM-9XYZPDQ and goes home, at which point the problem becomes an exercise for the student.  That's all an F-22 really has to do in CAP.  Want him to topple UAVs or cruise missiles with wingtip vortices?  ?  I daresay Mr. Phantom could do that too. Supercruise?
 
 .. link

IAI installed one PW1120 in the starboard nacelle of an F-4E-32-MC of the IDF/AF (Number 334/66-0327) to explore the airframe/powerplant combination for an upgrade program of the F-4E, known as Kurnass 2000 ("Heavy Hammer") or Super Phantom and to act as an engine testbed for the Lavi. The powerplant was more powerful, and more fuel efficient than the General Electric J79-GE-17 turbojet normally installed in the F-4E. The structural changes included modifying the air inlet ducts, new powerplant attachment points, new or modified powerplant baydoors, new airframe mounted gearbox with integrated drive generators and automatic throttle system. It also included a modified bleed management and air-conditioning ducting system, modified fuel and hydraulic systems, and a powerplant control/airframe interface. It was first flown on 30 July 1986.

Two PW1120 powerplants were installed in the same F-4E and it was flown for the first time on 24 April 1987. This proved very successful, allowing the Kurnass 2000 to exceed Mach 1 without the afterburners, and endowing a combat thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.04 (17 per cent better than the F-4E). This improved the sustained turn rate by 15 per cent, the climb rate by 36 per cent, medium-level acceleration by 27 per cent and low-level speed with 18 bombs from 1,046 km/h to 1,120 km/h (654 - 700 mph or 565 kts to 605 kts). It was demonstrated at the Paris Air Show in 1987.

 
 
Darth says two or four missiles is plenty, and I think everybody agrees that a Cessna would be deadly if you could hang AESA and AMRAAM and such on it. 
 
You could get plenty of them:
 

link class="l">F-4 Phantom II

Jan 11, 2005 ... Between 1966-67, production averaged 63 F-4 aircraft each month. Production peaked at 72 Phantom aircraft a month in 1967. ...
www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-4.htm - 29k - Cached - Similar pages -

 

link class="l">Federation of American Scientists :: F-4 Phantom II/F-4G Advanced ...

The F-4 Phantom II was a twin-engine, all-weather, fighter-bomber. ... Phantom II production ended in 1979 after over 5000 had been built--more than 2600 ...
www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/fighter/f4phantom.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages -
 

F-4 Phantom II/F-4G Advanced Wild Weasel 

Overview

F-4G Advanced Wild Weasel
Specifications
Images
F-4 Phantom II Images
F-4G Advanced Wild Weasel Images

The F-4 Phantom II was a twin-engine, all-weather, fighter-bomber. The aircraft could perform three tactical air roles — air superiority, interdiction and close air support — as it did in southeast Asia. First flown in May 1958, the Phantom II originally was developed for U.S. Navy fleet defense and entered service in 1961. The USAF evaluated it for close air support, interdiction, and counter-air operations and, in 1962, approved a USAF version. The USAF's Phantom II, designated F-4C, made its first flight on May 27, 1963. Production deliveries began in November 1963. In its air-to-ground role the F-4 could carry twice the normal bomb load of a WW II B-17. USAF F-4s also flew reconnaissance and "Wild Weasel" anti-aircraft missile suppression missions. Phantom II production ended in 1979 after over 5,000 had been built--more than 2,600 for the USAF, about 1,200 for the Navy and Marine Corps, and the rest for friendly foreign nations, including to Israel, Iran, Greece, Spain, Turkey, South Korea, West Germany, Australia, Japan, and Great Britain. Used extensively in the Vietnam War, later versions of the aircraft were still active in the U. S. Air Force inventory well into the 1990s. F-4s are no longer in the USAF inventory but are still flown by foreign nations.

 
 
 So, is increased fuel and tankage enough to sink the F-4 alone?
 
 
Hmm, I forget, did we buy KC-X yet?
 
 
 
Pretty birdie!  Good for carriers too.
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       4/25/2009 9:57:38 AM





Why use 200-300 old style aircraft to do the work of 50 supercruisers?



 



?????????????????????????????????????????     $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$






 



Herald






 


Because we have the necessary legacy aircraft to do this, they will be here for the next ~20 years, and the SecDef has made it clear the USAF isn't going to get 50 more super cruisers. 




And people wonder why I dismiss comments like that out of hand as showing no understandoing of subject.


With patience.
 
1. Most of the legacy Eagles claimed won't be there past 2015 as the hours will be used up.
2. Why fly 300 birds in the CONUS to do the coverage work when 50 will do? Pilots, jet engines: aircraft maintenance: that costs a lot of money as well as uses fuel and manpower we don't have for a mission that is defensive when our doctrine and style of warfare is offensive..  
3. Again that appeal to authority. Let me state it for the record in no uncertain terms so that it is well understood. Gates is a known political apparatchik and political conniver and betrayer of no merit, out for his own personal interests and not the interests of the nation.
 
Remember Carter's October Surprise, that that incompetent was trying to pull off to save his faiuling re-election bid? 
 
When Reagan squashed it he had an interesting no good piece of lying scum of his own, working directly for him inside the Carter Administration, to torpedo the Carter sell out of our national interests for his, Carter's, own personal gain.
 
 
quote:
 
 As described by the Russians, the Carter administration offered the Iranians supplies of arms and unfreezing of assets for a pre-election release of the hostages. One important meeting occurred in Athens in July 1980 with Pentagon representatives agreeing ?in principle? to deliver ?a significant quantity of spare parts for F-4 and F-5 aircraft and also M-60 tanks ... via Turkey,? the Russian report said.

The Iranians ?discussed a possible step-by-step normalization of Iranian-American relations [and] the provision of support for President Carter in the election campaign via the release of American hostages.?

But the Republicans were making their own overtures to the Iranians, also in Europe, the Russian report said. ?William Casey, in 1980, met three times with representatives of the Iranian leadership,? the report said. ?The meetings took place in Madrid and Paris.?

At the Paris meeting in October 1980, ?R[obert] Gates, at that time a staffer of the National Security Council in the administration of Jimmy Carter and former CIA Director George Bush also took part,? the Russian report said. ?In Madrid and Paris, the representatives of Ronald Reagan and the Iranian leadership discussed the question of possibly delaying the release of 52 hostages from the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran.?

Both the Reagan-Bush Republicans and the Carter Democrats ?started from the proposition that Imam Khomeini, having announced a policy of ?neither the West nor the East,? and cursing the ?American devil,? imperialism and Zionism, was forced to acquire American weapons, spares and military supplies by any and all possible means,? the Russian report said. The Republicans just won the bidding war.

?After the victory of R. Reagan in the election, in early 1981, a secret agreement was reached in London in accord with which Iran released the American hostages, and the U.S. continued to supply arms, spares and military supplies for the Iranian army,? the Russian report continued.

The deliveries were carried out by Israel, often through private arms dealers, the Russian report said. Spares for F-14 fighters and other military equipment went to Iran from Israel in March-April 1981 and the arms pipeline kept flowing into the mid-1980s.

Note that Gates, who worked for CARTER at the time, betrayed Carter, and sought through that betrayal to go to work for the incoming President Reagan's Administration? 
 
An appeal to an authority, like that made to Gates was already discredited earlier when I pointed out that Gates produced Russian intelligence product designed to fit the preconceived bias of the then Reagan Administration. In the case of the current interregnumist, now, that means 187 F-22s is what Gates will say no matter what the actual threat number crunching dictates we actually need.
 
Now for the last time, can we shelve the appeal to authority fallacy: especially if the appeal to that authority is to a known chicanerist and dissembler like Gates?
 
What does it take to get through to some of you?
 
Herald 
 
 
 
 

.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/25/2009 12:20:34 PM
What does it take to get through to some of you?
 
Herald 
 
 
Probably a lot of dead pilots and civilians.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Herald reply   4/25/2009 12:39:55 PM

Because we have the necessary legacy aircraft to do this, they will be here for the next ~20 years, and the SecDef has made it clear the USAF isn't going to get 50 more super cruisers. 

And people wonder why I dismiss comments like that out of hand as showing no understandoing of subject.
With patience.

 LOL well first, 50 F-22's would be woefully short to provide anything resembling complete coverage of CONUS. So dismissing what I'm telling you is a bit premature when you can't and haven't provided any data to support your claim that 50 F-22's is going to provide the kind of coverage you are suggesting against cruise missiles or even hijacked airliners. So as to avoid an unnecessary I'm right and you are wrong back and forth circular argument. Lets try to define the problem a bit shall we? Great. My questions to you, well question really, is what are these 50 F-22's protecting exactly? As in, do you have data that shows what areas you are hoping to cover? Something like this?

 

vs

 



That looks like a lot more than 50 F-22's to me if you want to completely take legacy aircraft out of the equation. And it only gives partial coverage when you consider there is more than nuke plants to worry about. I'm curious to see what is bringing you to the conclusion of 50 F-22's more.

 

1. Most of the legacy Eagles claimed won't be there past 2015 as the hours will be used up.


This is plain wrong and not what I said. I said legacy aircraft. That could be F-15, F-15E, F-16, F/A-18C/D or even modern aircraft like F/A-18E/F and F-35s which will be in service. Basically there will be thousands of combat aircraft capable of contributing to this fight. And there has to be when you consider that Operation Noble Eagle required over 30,000 sorties. About 34000 IIRC by 2004! In 2015 the legacy USAF legacy fleet looks like this...

 

So it looks like WE WILL HAVE ENOUGH legacy aircraft and even F-35s in significant numbers. 
 


 

2. Why fly 300 birds in the CONUS to do the coverage work when 50 will do? Pilots, jet engines: aircraft maintenance: that costs a lot of money as well as uses fuel and manpower we don't have for a mission that is defensive when our doctrine and style of warfare is offensive..  
 
 
Well for 1, we have the 300 legacy aircraft to do this. We don't have the 50 additional F-22's. The 50 F-22's cost you about 13 billion to procure(60) so either way we pay and it's not likely to give any savings when you factor that in. With regard to it being a defensive doctrine. Well thats what Warpig and I have been saying. All you are doing is taking 300+ legacy aircraft on defense and replacing them with 50 F-22's on defense. All you are doing is making a technological equipment substitution. This is a mission more suited for intelligence and security services or UCAVs next decade in order to deal with time critical targets that would challenge even an F-22's speed. In other words, why invest money in an obsolete operational concept we can already do and when the way to do it properly is on the horizon with DEW, UCAV SIAP and IFC...

 

Modern Cruise Missiles will not be chased down by F-22. If we aren't in position to intercept, we will not have time to get in position...

link width="425" height="344">
 



3. Again that appeal to authority. Let me state it for the record in no uncertain terms so that it is well understood. Gates is a known political apparatchik and political conniver and betrayer of no merit, out for his own personal interests and not the interests of the nation.

I understand that is YOUR PERSONAL POLITICAL VIEW OF GATES. Most of us here don't have that extreme view of the situation. I can't and wont tell you how to feel about politicians. But I can say it doesn't lend credibility to your argument when you make these politically charged and biased claims. Note that RAND, JANES and Other reputable OSINT airpower analysis don't use politically charged language to make their points. It's bad form and it assumes others see things from you political view which of course is absurd. Even the disreputable analysis like APA don't approach the situation this way.

SecDef Gates is doing a very difficult job. It is no appeal to authority to reference THE FACT that SecDef Gates has said publicly that THE MILITARY REQUIREMENT IS 187 and that the USAF recommended that number based on their assessments of the threat and for that reason production was being capped there. This isn't me asserting it Herald. This is me telling you what is the truth...

link width="425" height="344">  

Now, I understand that you do not think highly of SecDef Gates. I know that. But can you articulate why THIS decision is not in our interest. That is the question which you have not been able to answer.


-DA 

 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/25/2009 1:32:33 PM

Thanks for the video, now we can all visually experience how much of a liar Gates really is. Remember the article about the decision to close the F-22 program and the context about the AF Secretary never having a chance to recommend the final number of 243? I believe Gates says in the interview that the AF recommended to him that more than 187 was not necessary. The surprised reporter's questioning says it all. Lets stop pretending that this anything more than a Gates power trip.

 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/25/2009 1:41:33 PM
And on top of all that, DA (which was well-written indeed), I'd say that trying to keep 24/7 CAPs over specific targets, and potentially over dozens (maybe hundreds depending on what infrastructure is labeled as a potential target) is just absurdly unrealistic and a waste of resources.  What is the threat, to include who, what, where, and how?  Cruise missiles?!?  What missile, by whom, from where, how will they get there?  Once that is defined, then an appropriate level of defense can be mounted--and I'd bet it sure wouldn't need to include flying freaking 24/7 CAPs over dozens of facilities across the country!  That's a couple million gallons of gas, 10,000s of hours of airframe life, and a bunch of valuable personnel's careers wasted every year.  It shouldn't take any "extra" aircraft at all, and I don't think it does now.  Just assign every fighter squadron (or at least enough to provide sufficient coverage) a secondary air defense mission and have two jets on strip alert.  I'm pretty sure that's not really any different than what we've been doing since we opened Selfridge Field in Michigan and put the 94th FS on the job (if I've remembered my heritage coirrectly).  I seem to recall that was a primary mission for many Air Guard squadrons not long ago.  We started backing off from that requirement in the 1990s, and for good reason:  the requirement/threat changed, and we didn't need as many fighters on alert duty for continental air defense from bombers that weren't flying anymore.  Okay, we backed down a little too far, but I think mostly what went wrong is we no longer exercised the system enough and didn't keep good enough C4ISR co-ordination in play.  I'm confident that has been remidied to a great extent.  Any additional remaining need should be able to be filled by more of the same.  Continental air defense is/should not be a requirement for more F-22s, as opposed to anything else instead.
 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy